Did Jesus Teach Everlasting Torment for Unbelievers?

[Gary]

gary.

Why would I debate the existance(sic) of God, if I believe he doesn't exist? I still do it.

Most atheists are won over by facts.

I agree. Many atheists have been won over by facts. I was an atheist for over 25 years. I was "won over" to Christianity by the FACT of my sin; by the FACT that there must be absolute laws and a Lawgiver; by the FACTS of the life and work of our Lord Jesus Christ...

If you could prove, that God exists, then a mjaority of atheists, wouldn't be atheists (not all but a majority)

the problems are in the fact that you cannot prove it any better than we can prove god Doesn't exist..

I think the case for God is stronger than the case against God.

Have you ever SERIOUSLY considered ALL of these arguments for the existence of God?

Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God
by Peter Kreeft & Ronald K. Tacelli

As Peter Kreeft says:

We believe that only some of these arguments, taken individually and separately, demonstrate the existence of a being that has some of the properties only God can have (no argument proves all the divine attributes); but all twenty taken together, like twined rope, make a very strong case.

Read them here:
http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp? ... ments.html

 

[Gary]

the problems are in the fact that you cannot prove it any better than we can prove god Doesn't exist..

Capitalized "Doesn't", but not "god"? :

Just a joke. I don't care. But anyway, the problem is that there's no evidence for an athesit and you can't prove a negative.

So I'd say to all that instead of bible thumping, just don't debate. Let people be. They'll come to acceptance the existence of a deity in they're normal life or they will not.

I don't think it's something that can be decided by arguing of the net. :-D

I've tried to argue with many atheists online before. It only pushes them further away, imo. If they had questions or something, I'd answer them. But debating? I wouldn't advise it.

Of course, this is only my opinion.

I totally disagree. I was an atheist for 25 years. I came to chat forums and gave Christians a hard time. I was converted over the internet; led to our Lord Jesus Christ by a Christian!

:D

 

[Solo]

the problems are in the fact that you cannot prove it any better than we can prove god Doesn't exist..

Capitalized "Doesn't", but not "god"? :

Just a joke. I don't care. But anyway, the problem is that there's no evidence for an athesit and you can't prove a negative.

So I'd say to all that instead of bible thumping, just don't debate. Let people be. They'll come to acceptance the existence of a deity in they're normal life or they will not.

I don't think it's something that can be decided by arguing of the net. :-D

I've tried to argue with many atheists online before. It only pushes them further away, imo. If they had questions or something, I'd answer them. But debating? I wouldn't advise it.

Of course, this is only my opinion.

I totally disagree. I was an atheist for 25 years. I came to chat forums and gave Christians a hard time. I was converted over the internet; led to our Lord Jesus Christ by a Christian!

:D

Great Testimony Gary. I can see the love of God in your posts. Keep up the good work.

 

[peace4all]

gary, I began reading the link you provided.

However, it fails to sway me the least. I have heard all of those arguments, and pretty much disagree with them, based on teh fact that, to agree, you must already have a belief in God and the Bible.

that link is like trying to build a building, with no base.

doesnt float for me srry..


But umm.. how did we get to this topic?

 

[Gary]

gary, I began reading the link you provided.

However, it fails to sway me the least. I have heard all of those arguments, and pretty much disagree with them, based on teh fact that, to agree, you must already have a belief in God and the Bible.

Not true at all and it only shows that you have not approached the subject with an open mind.

that link is like trying to build a building, with no base.

Really? How so? You have already admitted that you did not read them all!!

doesnt float for me srry..

Yes, you should be sorry. You have not given the subject enough thought yet.

But umm.. how did we get to this topic?

As it may be the most important subject/topic you have ever considered. I wonder what you are scared of...

As you are meant to be an atheist, why even bother to discuss hell? (That was my original question)

Can you not see the irony of you discussing if hell is eternal punishment or not?

:-? :D

 

[guibox]

As you are meant to be an atheist, why even bother to discuss hell? (That was my original question)

Can you not see the irony of you discussing if hell is eternal punishment or not?

:-? :D

Not really. An atheist looks at this doctrine and says, 'How can people who believe in a loving God believe that He will allow people to burn for eternity?'

A really good question for someone who's morality we would put much more beneath our own sense of 'God given morality'.

And yet we then justify it by saying that we understand God's sense of justice and the concept of penalty for sin which somehow makes this all make complete sense.

Does the atheist have a lesser view of justice then we? If the atheist with their lack of God given justice sees the complete contradiction and evil in a God who does it, why should we who have the love of God in us defend such a concept when every fibre of our being revolts over such a concept being enforced on earth?

Sounds like an oxymoron, not irony.

 

[antitox]

As you are meant to be an atheist, why even bother to discuss hell? (That was my original question)

Can you not see the irony of you discussing if hell is eternal punishment or not?

:-? :D

Not really. An atheist looks at this doctrine and says, 'How can people who believe in a loving God believe that He will allow people to burn for eternity?'

And thoughts of an atheist do not apply at all here. An atheist tries to fit God into his own box, which is no God at all.

(Ps 14:1) "The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."

[quote:e42d1]A really good question for someone who's morality we would put much more beneath our own sense of 'God given morality'.

Man does not have God's morality, neither does God think like man.

And yet we then justify it by saying that we understand God's sense of justice and the concept of penalty for sin which somehow makes this all make complete sense.

God's justice is based upon His Word which lasts forever. And if God established authorities that bear the sword (Rom 13), then you should think twice before asserting that penalty has no place. Sin has penalty. It's all in the bible.

Does the atheist have a lesser view of justice then we?

Social justice, and only by his personal perspective. Yet he refuses to acknowledge divine justice because he believes in no ultimate authority. See first answer above.

If the atheist with their lack of God given justice sees the complete contradiction and evil in a God who does it, why should we who have the love of God in us defend such a concept when every fibre of our being revolts over such a concept being enforced on earth?

Sounds like an oxymoron, not irony.

[/quote:e42d1]

Man will not see eye to eye with God. There is no contradiction other than man's inability to see beyond himself. You are limiting God to your intellect only just like the atheist. If God has to meet your quality approval, then looks like you've got a lot to deal with. Not smart to refer to God's position on this as oxymoron.

(1 Cor 1:20) "Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?"

(1 Cor 1:25) "For the foolishness of God is wiser than men."

 

[Drew]

I think there is something kind of strange going on when we give assent to propositions about God's nature that seem nonsensical to us. One example is the proposition that a loving God could impose an eternal penalty of torment for unreprentent sinners. I think that even those who believe in this notion (and most Christians apparently do), agree that it is incomprehensible to us. However, the majority seem content to accept its seeming cruelty on the one hand and yet also claim it is still consistent with the concept of a loving God.

I must admit that my reasons for not believing in this doctrine are largely intuitive - I cannot (now anyway) give a "technical" argument as to why eternal punishment cannot be squared with the attribute of divine love (or even justice for that matter).

Instead, I will claim that we all know, deep in our hearts and bowels, what love is really all about. We know that true love can sometimes be "tough", but when it is, it has, as its goal, the ultimate well-being of the one we love in mind. I just cannot make sense of the point of eternal torment - there is no "greater good" type of result - there is no "emerging from the fire" to a better state. There is just endless torment.

Again, we all deep down know that the imposition of pain is simply not a demonstration love to the one who suffers - unless there is some greater good being served for that person. To me, the concept of eternal torment is simply incompatible with the idea of a loving God. Think about someone you love deeply. Now picture them (and I mean really picture them) spending eternity in pain. If you can honestly say this can be seen as consistent with love....

I would expect that real truths that are beyond our ability to fully grasp would at least have "a ring of truth about them". For me, the doctrine of eternal hell elicits a very different response - a deep sense of dis-ease.

 

[peace4all]

gary, the article you supplied me with, was supposedly combining all of the arguments, the top 20, to form a good enough argument to prove it.

If the first 8 or so, did nothing but make me laugh at the content, then I do not see how the other 12 will be lucky enough to chang my mind.

as a theist, do you not question my morals, which I make up on my own?

as an atheist, I think I have the right to question the morals you may impose on someone, because of a book.

I have been given many responses that try to open my eyes, tp diffrent possibilities about God, and life etc. SometimesI see them as worthy of understanding, sometimes, they are the reasons I Don't believe.
I do the same thing, but in reverse, Instead of questionign as to How I can be an atheist, I question as to How can someone not be?

 

[antitox]

I think there is something kind of strange going on when we give assent to propositions about God's nature that seem nonsensical to us.

It isn't nonsensical. Do you know what the bible says about God's personal nature? He does not compromise His nature. The OT should give you some understanding of that.

He will not clear the guilty.(Num 14:8)

Righteousness and justice are the FOUNDATION of His throne.(Ps 89:14)

If God fits into your personal assessment of what is and what is not, then you are essentially saying that He has to meet your criteria in order to be correct. He does not stoop to that.(Isa 55:8,9)

One example is the proposition that a loving God could impose an eternal penalty of torment for unreprentent sinners. I think that even those who believe in this notion (and most Christians apparently do), agree that it is incomprehensible to us. However, the majority seem content to accept its seeming cruelty on the one hand and yet also claim it is still consistent with the concept of a loving God.

(Ps 5:4) "For thou art not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not sojourn with thee."

I must admit that my reasons for not believing in this doctrine are largely intuitive - I cannot (now anyway) give a "technical" argument as to why eternal punishment cannot be squared with the attribute of divine love (or even justice for that matter).

The reasons are primarily socially-human. Most social-based beliefs which are generally of the liberal mindset which are rehabilitative in thought; that everyone is intrinsically good, and that they just need to be trained or rehabilitated to do right, that redemption is attainable irregardless of the scenario in question. As if their choices were not their own or somehow beyond them to make and that we need to make it for them.

Instead, I will claim that we all know, deep in our hearts and bowels, what love is really all about. We know that true love can sometimes be "tough", but when it is, it has, as its goal, the ultimate well-being of the one we love in mind. I just cannot make sense of the point of eternal torment - there is no "greater good" type of result - there is no "emerging from the fire" to a better state. There is just endless torment.

'

Well that's what the issue is here. You are not able to accept it. Since you can't, you deny it.

Again, we all deep down know that the imposition of pain is simply not a demonstration love to the one who suffers - unless there is some greater good being served for that person. To me, the concept of eternal torment is simply incompatible with the idea of a loving God. Think about someone you love deeply. Now picture them (and I mean really picture them) spending eternity in pain. If you can honestly say this can be seen as consistent with love....

Incompatible? Maybe to you. But He happens to possess a whole lot more strength and resolve than you do. That's why He's the Judge. Man is too fickle to even comprehend what it takes to man the Throne.

I would expect that real truths that are beyond our ability to fully grasp would at least have "a ring of truth about them". For me, the doctrine of eternal hell elicits a very different response - a deep sense of dis-ease.

Of course it does. It TERRIBLE.

 

[antitox]

gary, the article you supplied me with, was supposedly combining all of the arguments, the top 20, to form a good enough argument to prove it.

If the first 8 or so, did nothing but make me laugh at the content, then I do not see how the other 12 will be lucky enough to chang my mind.

as a theist, do you not question my morals, which I make up on my own?

We have our own opinion and the right to question anyone's intent.

as an atheist, I think I have the right to question the morals you may impose on someone, because of a book.

Yes, you do.

I have been given many responses that try to open my eyes, tp diffrent possibilities about God, and life etc. SometimesI see them as worthy of understanding, sometimes, they are the reasons I Don't believe.
I do the same thing, but in reverse, Instead of questionign as to How I can be an atheist, I question as to How can someone not be?

We go by our Book. You go by your own little book you have written in your head. You question our book, we question your brain. It's only fair.

You will not agree with the Bible, we already know that.
My Bible says that you are a fool to deny God's existence. So what do you expect?

 

[peace4all]

ok, antitox, you did a good job describing what I meant, in a more christian attitude.

hopefully gary will get that.

There is no point in saying "your an atheist, you shouldn't have a say in this topic" if we both know that we both differ on our views. IF everyone had the same views, then we wouldn't even be discussing these things. I just bring a diffrent side to the table.

 

[Drew]

If God fits into your personal assessment of what is and what is not, then you are essentially saying that He has to meet your criteria in order to be correct.

Guilty as charged.

However.....

When some Christians claim that others are "personally assessing" assertions about God and His nature, I think that they need to realize that they are in the same boat. Unless these Christians are somehow priveleged and have some "magic pathway" that delivers truth into their minds unmediated or untainted by the imposition of their own very "personal" worldview and experience.

Perhaps some Christians will claim this, but I find it to be a very dubious claim indeed. There is one person on this very board (and I am most definitely not referring to antitox, whom I consider to be one of the more credible spokesmen for what I would call "orthodox Biblical" Christianity), who claim that God reveals pure truth to them in a manner that "bypasses" their inherently corrupted human nature. And yet this person is obviously deeply confused and / or deliberately silly.

My point is that the claim of access to truth, unmediated by application of "personal" judgments does not seem to pass the "ye shall know them by their fruits" test.

 

[lovely]

I think everyone is forgetting the question that was orginally asked in this thread. "Did Jesus teach..." It is not what is the trend of what people believe in this day and age, or what can we assert as truth according to the limited understanding of our own natural minds...which can not conceive God, or His plan, or His truth in a complete manner. We have Scripture, and we have our limited (collective and individual) understanding that is aided by the teaching of the Holy Spirit. And we have our faith...which is what God has given us. Jesus had an answer for what truth was, and it is not what everyone believes. God's Word is the cornerstone of truth for us, and not based on every fad belief that changes with the mood of this sinful world. God has warned us to not be wise in our own eyes. "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding, in all your ways acknowledg Him, and He will direct your path."

If the question is based on the Bible being true, then Jesus did teach everlasting torment for those who follow satan, and his deceptive teachings. It is not necessary for believers to change God's Word to make it more acceptable to a lost and dying world...caught in the deceiver's lies. Someone is not going to belive in Christ, and His sacrificial death to pay the price of their sin with His blood, just because we tell them a lie. Would the Holy Spirit come into someone's heart based on a lie? Is this how God works? God is providing a way, a way of grace, for those who believe on Him. If I bait them with a lie, then they will believe only a lie (and lies are the tool of satan)...not on Christ, the gateway, the Truth that sets one free.

I know that those who believe in eternal death for the lost are not popular. I do not feel self-righteous towards the lost...I feel moved to tell them of the Gospel. I do not take pleasure in the fact that some will have eternal death...I would be one of them but for the grace of God. But, I can not represent God's Word as a lie, and I trust God. There are natural consequences to sin, and there are also spiritual. No, I do not fully understand it, because I view all through the limited mind, and body, and universe, that I am currently in...in it's fallen state. Maybe that makes me silly to some, and illogical to others, and even unkind to still others...I don't know. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen. By definition in is not something reasoned. I can not trust the minds of men (my mind included), sinful men, over the Word of God...the only standard of truth we have in this world. The only beacon of light and truth. If something doesn't add up in my mind, or in the minds of others...believers or not, then so be it. It is God who has chosen to reveal Himself in the way He has, and He does not need me making things up to make Him more appealing. Love is true...and if God states in His Word that there is a Hell eternal...then, there is...He does not lie.

The Lord bless you all.
lovely

 

[SputnikBoy]

If the question is based on the Bible being true, then Jesus did teach everlasting torment for those who follow satan, and his deceptive teachings.

Yes, Jesus did. But we also need to put everything pertaining to this issue into context. Was Jesus referring to 'eternal torment' in a literal sense or was this purely symbolic? We have to compare scripture with scripture. And, the scriptures do not teach this. Jesus would not have been contradicting what the Bible has already established. So therefore He was not teaching 'eternal torment' to His listeners in a literal sense. He was teaching that salvation is something to gain and hell is something to shun in a manner that they would understand.

I know that those who believe in eternal death for the lost are not popular. I do not feel self-righteous towards the lost...I feel moved to tell them of the Gospel. I do not take pleasure in the fact that some will have eternal death...I would be one of them but for the grace of God.

There, you have it. Annihilation is indeed eternal death. We seem to be in agreement.

 

[lovely]

sputnikboy wrote:

We seem to be in agreement.

Sputnikboy, we are not in agreement. The Lord bless you.

 

[SputnikBoy]

sputnikboy wrote:

We seem to be in agreement.

Sputnikboy, we are not in agreement. The Lord bless you.

So, God will cause people to suffer literal eternal torment forever and ever? Okay.

 

[lovely]

Sputnikboy wrote:

So, God will cause people to suffer literal eternal torment forever and ever? Okay.

These are your words. God has paid the wages of sin, and His Son shed His precious blood so that we have a sacrifical Lamb if we believe in Him. John 3:16 "For God so loved the World, that whosoever believeth on Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life." "For the wages of Sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." I believe that eternal death, and Hell, are the wages of Sin, and that if God, in His mercy has provided a payment for such a consequence, then we should be so, so thankful for that provision. Through one man sin entered the world. Please do not misquote me is such a fashion. You can be sarcastic, or misquote me in any other way, but do not assume that I would ever say such things about the God, creator, in Heaven. The Lord bless you.

 

[Lyric's Dad]

sputnikboy wrote:

We seem to be in agreement.

Sputnikboy, we are not in agreement. The Lord bless you.

So, God will cause people to suffer literal eternal torment forever and ever? Okay.

Yes, because He is love.... :roll:

 

[Drew]

Yes, because He is love.... :roll:

This sardonic remark is precisely the point. The notion of eternal torment is so unworkable in light of the doctrine of love that to accept it (eternal torment) is to cause the notion of love to lose any meaningful content. It is fine to say God is both loving and also sends people to Hell for eternity, but this will only work if one is willing to use the word love as a meaningless placeholder. (If you want to try the "we send ourselves to hell argument, go ahead - but I think it does not work).

If one actually does the work of asking "what is love?", if one actually analyzes the concepts involved, the doctrine of love cannot be reconciled with eternal punishment.

Here is my challenge to those who believe that eternal punishment is consistent with a loving God: explain, in your own words, what "love" actually means and then see where this gets us.